<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 August 2012 01:44, Ross Patterson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@rpatterson.net" target="_blank">me@rpatterson.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> For me the discussion sounds a little like a general denial against<br>
> github using the legal story as rationale.<br>
<br>
</div></div>+10. I'm so glad others are saying the things I think need saying.<br>
<br>
I *am* a signed ZF contributor and from experience, the likelihood of<br>
such stop energy or other unpleasantness prevents me from contributing<br>
to Zope projects nearly as much as I'd like or could. This is a<br>
sterling example.<br>
<br>
To be clear, I'm not invalidating legal concerns, I'm only frustrated<br>
that those representing those concerns are taking a hard line on only<br>
one concern without seeming to accept multiple invitations to work the<br>
problem from all represented concerns. I'm grateful to the others for<br>
trying so hard to kickstart a healthy level of participation in<br>
zc.buildout development once again.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is mildly interesting to compare the volume of discussion about Zope development vs the volume of discussion about where not to do Zope development on this list in the last few days.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think Jens is right to point out the legal concerns, which many of us don't fully understand. I think it might have been more effective had it pointed out why people should care, rather than just saying "this is the rule".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Martin</div></div>